BBD, Wow, CrKampen, etc. Its a waste of time engaging Betula here on topics that are beyond his depth of understanding. He has no idea how basic linear regression works – instead he thinks data should connect lines starting at points of convenience – and he hasn’t got a clue about evolutionary biology and the timescales required for massive physiological changes in species. I’m sure that in Betula’s simpleton world the giant sauropods evolved from their primitive ancestors in about a few hundred years or maybe a thousand. That true birds radiated from Archaeopteryx in a couple of centuries.

Scientifically illiterate people don’t understand the importance of scale and the significance of rapid changes in largely deterministic systems. Betula can’t debate his way out of a soaking wet paper bag, but he thinks he can. That’s the problem. He’s a model subject for Dunning-Kruger. But even thinks that D-K doesn’t apply to him, but to scientists like me who have studied evolutionary biology for the past 25 years. His world is denier blogs.

A total waste of time debating and discussing anything remotely scientific with him. He thinks that North American ecosystems are doing fine on the basis of three utterly appalling examples. No scientist would take them seriously. When called out on them, he moves on. He’s teflon Betty.

#7 Jeff, yes. Now ignorance is no sin at all, of course. But arrogance by ignorance and nil will to learn anything are something else.
Dunning-Kruger fed by the merchants of doubt. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which is which. In the AGW ‘debate’ I judge guilty (of merchandising) until proven innocent (by showing a) a will to learn and b) a proof of having learnt something by using it). Those who get shot as collateral damage by me, like happened at Sou’s with one ‘lolwot’ yesterday, don’t get wounded anyway.

You’re a broken record Hardley. That’s no excuse for claiming to witness climate change first hand over a 28 day period in Algonquin where the average temperature was ” -2 oC during the day and -10″ at night and your buddy got frostbite….now that’s a time scale.

Do you really want to go through this again? Weren’t you embarrassed enough the first 3 times?

You’re a broken record Hardley. That’s no excuse for claiming to witness climate change first hand over a 28 day period in Algonquin where the average temperature was ” -2 oC during the day and -10″ at night and your buddy got frostbite….now that’s a time scale.

Do you really want to go through this again? Weren’t you embarrassed enough the first 3 times?

The recent slowdown in the rate of surface warming is clearly an irrelevance at centennial scale. So why all the hysterical fuss about non-existent hiati and pauses? Unless you are obfuscating the scientific evidence about the centennial-scale effects of CC by hyperfocus on short-term variability. Which is, of course, exactly what you and the rest of the denier chorus are desperately trying to do.

Later, when you continued with your never-ending dance of evasions, I said this:

#89 Yes, he [Betty] knows – that’s why he’s trying to dodge the point. He does this every single time a point is raised which challenges his denial. That’s why I call him intellectually dishonest – because he is.

But here you are, still at it, still demonstrating that you are intellectually dishonest to the core. Why do this? Do yourself a favour and just stop.

“and he hasn’t got a clue about evolutionary biology and the timescales required for massive physiological changes in species. I’m sure that in Betula’s simpleton world the giant sauropods evolved from their primitive ancestors in about a few hundred years or maybe a thousand. That true birds radiated from Archaeopteryx in a couple of centuries.”

What are you talking about you Cabbage?

This is all you! Fantasies about sauropods, theropods, archaeopteryx, it’s all you!

All that’s happened is that someone has posted a couple of “Scientist’s say” links, to hopefully make a point of how cheap these claims can be, and you get all defensive and want to show how “Sciency” you are.

The stories are meaningless rubbish jeff! only an idiot would take them on, and in this case that seems to be you as usual.

“A total waste of time debating and discussing anything remotely scientific with him.”

If scientists are talking about a pause or hiatus, which they are, then I recommend you take it up with them…. in less hysterical fashion of course.

The problem here is with lying climate change deniers making false claims that boil down to “global warming has stopped”. AR5 does not say that. “Scientists” who know what they are talking about do not say that. So, lying climate change deniers are the problem. People like you, Betty. People who misrepresent and distort the science in order to further their unpleasant political agendas.

Why won’t you say anything about the long term temperature trends I keep showing you, Betty? Why do you keep blanking this?

I’m reminded of the way you just *denied* the validity of the scientific evidence presented by Cowtan & Way even though you have no professional expertise on which to base your rejectionism and have not actually read the study in question.

I was talking about the long term trends of ice cover on shallow lakes of the North Slope of Alaska….based on 20 years of satellite. That’s is the topic of the article that was linked. That’s the topic I was responding to. That was the topic of discussion. That’s why I called him a hypocritical encirclement….do try to follow along before you comment.

“I’m reminded of the way you just *denied* the validity of the scientific evidence presented by Cowtan & Way even though you have no professional expertise on which to base your rejectionism and have not actually read the study in question.”

I did read it. That’s why I linked the words “suggest” and “estimate”….. And you will note that I didn’t get into Gavin Schmidt’s response and the whole NASA GISS – Earth Institute/ Hansen/Sachs/Pachauri/Soros/ U.N. collaboration and I didn’t mention RealClimate and the Fenton Group… not once. So you should be proud of me…

Ice cover of lakes everywhere is influenced by long term temperature trends. I’ve already explained this to you, so why you suggesting that the comprehension problem lies with *me* is a mystery.

Actually, it’s not, of course. You are doing this because you cannot bear to discuss the FACT that long term temperature trends demonstrate AGW very plainly indeed.

Which is why you blank this information just as you denied the validity of the scientific evidence presented in Cowtan & Way and continue to do so. You are a denier. You actually DO think that AGW has stopped, which is why you go on endlessly about pauses and hiati even though I’ve shown you that there has not been a pause or hiatus at all.

But I am glad you kept your crazy conspiracy theories out of it this time. Small mercies and all that.

Two facts: the long term trend is up, up, up and there has been no pause or hiatus.

GSW, the entire discussion is over your head. That’s hardly surprising, since you are a dimwit. You are so dumb you cannot even understand my analogies which relate to deep time.

If Betty had tried to argue that the rat story was utter nonsense in the way the paper reported it, then fine. But he didn’t. And I am sure that like him, you believe that macro-evolutionary processes on this scale can occur in the blink of a temporal eye.

As for the article I linked, what it shows is that 20 years is more than enough provided critical thresholds are reached and exceed, for measurable effects of one abiotic process on another. This is actually kindergarten level stuff, but perhaps not surprisingly, Batty didn’t get it. Any more than he will be ale to explain clear cut biotic responses to warming that have been also recorded since the 1990s. I can list dozens of them, clear proof that is is warming and that the warming is ongoing.

What is also amazing is how easily you denier cranks dismiss peer-reviewed studies in journals that you don’t like. Jonas, your hero, is a master of the art. You all act like some deities who sit on high and don’t do any primary research yourselves but feel ably qualified to be able to simply dismiss a large body of empirical and theoretical literature in rigid journals whilst giving a nod of approval to a much smaller body of literature often published in bottom-feeding journals.

No matter how many times any of us here link to papers in Nature, Science, PNAS, Global Change Biology, Ecology Letters or any other top journal that supports AGW theory, we can be sure that the armchair denier brigade – all of whom aren’t qualified to say a ting about any of them – will still be there to dismiss the scientific merit of them all.

Damn! And here I was I just beginning to accept the fact that it was my lack of understanding of time scales and changes in largely deterministic systems that was causing my paranoia of snake buses and cow rats…

“Ice cover of lakes everywhere is influenced by long term temperature trends”

So Ice cover everywhere on earth is influenced equally by GAT? Is that what you’re saying? Then why didn’t the scientist just use long term GAT to determine the response of ice cover on shallow lakes of the North Slope of Alaska? It would have been so much easier!

Here’s another view of that comparative GAT graph, this time with a decadal running average. This removes most of the decadal noise of natural variability and reveals the underlying trend. This is what you are trying and failing to deny.

Preliminary mass balance values for the observation period 2011/12 have been reported now from more than 120 glaciers worldwide. The mass balance statistics (Table 1) are calculated based on all reported values as well as on the data from the 37 reference glaciers in ten mountain ranges (Table 2) with continuous observation series back to 1980.

The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to be negative, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.6 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2012. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at 16 m w.e. (see Figures 1 and 2).

Actually, its not junk science at all. But, as Chek says, its tarnished by the source, a far right rag that caters to the lowest of the low. The term junk science is the purview of Stephen Milloy, so it tells you what kinds of crap GSW reads.

There’s every chance that in vacant niches rats could radiate to evolve into huge animals – in a few million years. I see nothing suggesting that, under certain conditions, this could not be the case. But its a shame that science like this gets the Daily Fail treatment. Its these same rags that deniers often cite for their information on climate science, and its equally egregious.

Also, Jeff, WRT hot climates and gigantism in poikilotherms – specifically snakes, specifically the evolution of titanoboa during the Paleocene, have you seen Matthew Huber on ‘snake paleothermometry’? Short article here.Really big snakes appear to need a hotter environment than any currently available, hence no giant snakes today. It’s interesting, although novel and Huber only says that it’s a tentative piece of evidence for a hot Paleocene equator 60 – 58Ma. He also points out that the much hotter conditions during the PETM probably killed off many species already at the edge of their thermal envelope during the upper Paleocene.

BBD, I replied to one of Tol’s nauseating comments about environmentalism on the blog. That he is associated with the Groene Rekenkamer tells me a lot about him. Nothing surprising, of course. Tol’s is an economist and not a scientist. Yet IMHO he writes about topics that have clear environmental implications as if he has some kind of innate wisdom to understand the natural economy,

As an economist, though, has Tol EVER shown proof of the alarmist claims that any of the proposed solutions to overproduction of CO2 would cause the devastating economic impact that the alarmists insist would take place?

I’m very pleased to see you over at ATTP. The comments policy is pretty hot on civility (see the strapline of the blog) so don’t let the idiots wind you up visibly. But with that caveat in mind, you might enjoy the conversation over there. Worth putting on your watch list, at the very least.

#44, not a single day mean below freezing in de Bilt, Holland till now: another record.
Drowned Cornwall is taking another drenching as we speak.
Once more Friday/Saturday.
Once more Monday/Tuesday.
Those will include the further demolishment of Irish sea defences too – stuff that had survived over 150 years of Atlantic violence.

#46 –
4406 U.S. record cold temperatures in January.
1073 snowfall records.
150 years of Atlantic violence might have an affect on sea defenses. And it’s amazing that after 150 years of Atlantic violence, Atlantic violence surprises you…
And speaking of Holland, how much damage has been done by sea level rise to date?

Betty, are you seriously arguing that MSL isn’t rising now and will not continue to rise as OHC increases in future?

There are two factors at work – thermal expansion, driven directly by OHC increase – and the contribution from ice sheet melt.

Both are driven by the ongoing and increasing radiative imbalance caused by the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sometimes I have to stop and re-calibrate. What is it that you are denying exactly? Because to me, at times like this, it *sounds* as though you are denying radiative physics (aka the ‘greenhouse effect’).

You seem to be implying that either there is no GHE, or if there is, that CO2 is not an efficacious climate forcing. Which is it?

#48, then there must be about 44.060 US record warm temps in January because that would reflect the typical trend of ratio of warm vs cold records. The heat records, incidentally, are MUCH more impressive. Have a look in the west e.g. California and Alaska.

Snowfallrecords, they are in Austria too (where January was 4th to 1st warmest in at least 300 years) and they are usually AGW. More precipitation, remember?

“And speaking of Holland, how much damage has been done by sea level rise to date?”
Astronomically much in terms of preparation. After the floods of 1953 killing almost 2000 in our country huge money goes into protecting the country.
We CAN withstand a rise of 1 metre do you know. Except… The rivers get a harder time every year flowing out the water to the ever rising sea (which on our coast is about the global average). In January 2012 a #6 wettest December following a record dry November already resulted in almost disaster in
weather conditions that used to be unremarkable.
Go speak with the Dutch Delta Commission.

As you know Central Europe got the two worst floods of a millenium (at least) last year and in 2002. We in Holland are just waiting for our turn. The quarter million evacs from the river floods in 1995 will mean nothing in comparison. And we have nowhere to run, mate.
Neither have you, actually, except into silence. Please.

Btw we and Belgium got the highest storm surge since the 1953 disaster last December. Damages nil, investment into protection everything. Still the southwest of the country, which was hit in ’53, stayed awake that night. So did many in the northeast, there not only from the surge but because this century has begun featuring earthquakes from winning methane in our famous gas field. Houses have already been destroyed, and there is great fear for dykes rolling over because of quake during a surge.

#58, you were obsessed with that tiny part of earth called the US. Not me. So I gave you some food. You will never forget about the ratio again, see. And you are quite unlikely to ever come up with such nice numbers again. Although, the jet getting stuck ever more might produce some cold waves, yet, while compensation of course with much larger and greater hot anomalies.

#59, no.
So a much weaker storm resulting in almost the same levels as ’53 a half century later, was. Get it?

Betty, are you seriously arguing that MSL isn’t rising now and will not continue to rise as OHC increases in future?

There are two factors at work – thermal expansion, driven directly by OHC increase – and the contribution from ice sheet melt.

Both are driven by the ongoing and increasing radiative imbalance caused by the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sometimes I have to stop and re-calibrate. What is it that you are denying exactly? Because to me, at times like this, it *sounds* as though you are denying radiative physics (aka the ‘greenhouse effect’).

You seem to be implying that either there is no GHE, or if there is, that CO2 is not an efficacious climate forcing. Which is it?

“For the first year since 1993, there were more daily record lows than daily highs that were either tied or set in 2013,” reported Weather Channel meteorologist Guy Walton, who keeps track of the data from the climate center.

Through Dec. 28, there have been 11,852 daily record lows in 2013, compared with 10,073 daily record highs, according to Walton. A “daily” record occurs when a specific location sets a record high or low temperature for a particular day; other types of records include monthly and all-time.

Walton said that an unusually cold spring was the main factor in the “cool” 2013. The year 2013 was a stunning turnaround from the USA’s amazingly warm year of 2012, when more than 34,000 record highs were measured across the country, as compared with only about 6,600 record lows.

Overall, the year was likely a blip in a long-term warming trend: “The ratio of daily highs to daily lows continues to be near 3 to 1 for this decade, so far,” Walton said. Also for the decade so far, there have been 700 all-time record highs set, compared with only 74 all-time record lows. Worldwide, since the USA is only about 2% of the Earth’s surface, what happens here is far from representative of the planet as a whole.

Through November, the most recent month for which national and global climate statistics are available, the world was having its 4th-warmest year on record, while the USA was seeing its 35th-warmest on record, the NCDC reports.Climate records go back to the 1880s

In 2013, the nation’s hottest temperature was 129 degrees, recorded at Death Valley, Calif., on June 30, while the coldest was the -58 degree mark in Chicken, Alaska, on Dec. 26, according to Christopher Burt, weather historian with the Weather Underground.

True to form, I expect Betty will attempt to deflect this by denying he’s a denier.

I love it. I ask a question. You answer my question with a question. I repeat the question. You ask me to answer your question.
Answer the question:
And speaking of Holland, how much damage has been done by sea level rise to date?

The numbers I were talking about were for January. Again January. That would be why Ralph responded with this:
” then there must be about 44.060 US record warm temps in January because that would reflect the typical trend of ratio of warm vs cold records”

However, I do appreciate you posting the information regarding the record cold temperatures for the year and proving Kramden wrong on a much larger scale.

And speaking of Holland, how much damage has been done by sea level rise to date?

Betty, we are at the beginning of the process. You are doing the usual denier fuckwit thing where you look backwards over the last half century and try to argue that this will tell us about the future. Really, it won’t. Especially not where sea level rise is concerned. The clue is in the word “rise”. So stop being evasive and playing silly rhetorical games with me and answer my perfectly reasonable question arising from your odd statements above.

And remember, the more you evade, the more dishonest you look, even to yourself. So answer the question. It’s in your own interest to do so:

Once again – are you seriously arguing that MSL isn’t rising now and will not continue to rise as OHC increases in future?

There are two factors at work – thermal expansion, driven directly by OHC increase – and the contribution from ice sheet melt.

Both are driven by the ongoing and increasing radiative imbalance caused by the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Sometimes I have to stop and re-calibrate. What is it that you are denying exactly? Because to me, at times like this, it *sounds* as though you are denying radiative physics (aka the ‘greenhouse effect’).

You seem to be implying that either there is no GHE, or if there is, that CO2 is not an efficacious climate forcing. Which is it?

BBD, you are wasting your breath with Batty man. Asking about the damage done to the Netherlands by seal level rise thus far reveals a complete inability to grasp the notion of thresholds and predictable events. Batty’s the kind of guy who would sit by and watch someone throw matches into his house after pouring fuel on it and then casually ask, ‘where’s the damage?’ just as the first flames started to flare.

Essentially Batty wants us all to wait until water is lapping at our windows, ecosystems are collapsing and general chaos is occurring before waking up and saying, “Aha! Now I see the proof! Let’s do something!”. By then, of course, its too late. The damage is already being done, as illustrated by numerous studies in the empirical literature, which as is well known is full of research on existing effects on biotic and abiotic parameters. The important point is that critical thresholds have not for the most part yet been exceeded, or else technology has delayed the manifestation on the human economy. But this can’t go on indefinitely. Unfortunately, for people like Batty, 100% proof is required; nothing less will do. Science and policy of course should not work this way, but I have encountered enough Batty-types over the past 20 years to know exactly where they are coming from.

I had an online interaction – for lack of a better word – with a libertarian guy in Canada a few years ago who argued that acid rain never posed much of a threat to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. I disagreed. He said he wanted proof. I supplied quite a few papers, but of course they all came with the usual caveats: the processes are still poorly understood and clearly more research is needed to fully quantify the effects of acid precipitation on nature. This was a cue for the guy to say: no problemo. Not enough evidence, business-as-usual. But science is rarely absolute. Yet the anti-environmental/pro-development/less government/right wing brigade demand absolute certainly. Until it is provided, the problems either don’t exist or are overblown.

Yes, this is the mentality of Batty and other AGW downplayers or deniers.

Batty, over here in western Europe we are experiencing the second warmest winter on record – after 2006/7. So both in the last decade. But again, like the USA, a small percentage of the world’s land mass.

And again, you are citing a blip of one data point in a small part of the world in one season. Can you not get your head around long term trends?

“Once again – are you seriously arguing that MSL isn’t rising now and will not continue to rise as OHC increases in future?”

Where did you get this? Because I asked how much damage has happened to Holland to date? It’s below sea level and fragile, I wanted to be clear about where we were at this moment in time. It would be the same as asking how many polar bears have died as a direct result of climate change to date….a reference point. Of course, if you were to ask the average person on the street how many polar bears have died as a direct result of AGW, what do you think they would say? Zero?

I realize MSL has been rising, in fact it’s been rising for 20,000 years, and it will continue to rise IF OHC continues…how it follows the long term trend is a question mark.

I realize MSL has been rising, in fact it’s been rising for 20,000 years, and it will continue to rise IF OHC continues…how it follows the long term trend is a question mark.

Why the “IF”?

I repeat:

Sometimes I have to stop and re-calibrate. What is it that you are denying exactly? Because to me, at times like this, it *sounds* as though you are denying radiative physics (aka the ‘greenhouse effect’).

You seem to be implying that either there is no GHE, or if there is, that CO2 is not an efficacious climate forcing. Which is it?

* * *

You have again blanked the important part of what I said above, so I will simply repeat it:

We are at the beginning of the process. You are doing the usual denier fuckwit thing where you look backwards over the last half century and try to argue that this will tell us about the future. Really, it won’t. Especially not where sea level rise is concerned. The clue is in the word “rise”. So stop being evasive and playing silly rhetorical games with me and answer my perfectly reasonable question arising from your odd statements above.

And remember, the more you evade, the more dishonest you look, even to yourself. So answer the question. It’s in your own interest to do so.

I cannot make it any clearer than that. Please answer my questions without further wriggling.

Yes, we can argue about whether the WAIS collapse will begin by the end of this century or sometime next century. What is inarguable is that the last time GAT was 1 – 2C above the present, mean sea level was at least six metres above late Holocene levels. This occurred because the WAIS collapsed, at least partially, there was ~2m contribution to MSL from the Greenland ice sheet and possibly 1 – 2m from various bits of East Antarctica. The big mystery these days is how much came from the WAIS relative to the EAIS.

Either that, or it deliberately clings to bad thinking after the badness has been pointed out repeatedly.

(Mind you, that provides much the same result in the end.)

Good ol’ Betty, who reliably crows over the carefully framed and meaningless micro-point while avoiding the macro-point.

Exactly. It is a lovely illustration that the denialists don’t have a leg to stand on with respect to the key conclusions of climate science, so we can thank Betula for at least providing that ongoing service. And with such enthusiasm and commitment too!

Sad to see that. As a child I enjoyed many a holiday there and at nearby Owlish Warren when building sand castles competed with logging the locomotives pulling the trains along the sea wall. I was lucky enough to spot the last of the GWR Star Class, forerunner of the later Castle Class some of which are still in steam, in traffic there in the mid 1950s.

This was the only rail link into Cornwall, thanks to cuts by another Tory administration which savaged the rail network, the then Minister for Transport had a decided conflict of interest by being into road haulage at the time.

Somerset is one of the UKs prime agricultural regions, having been based at a nearby air station (all weather fighter in my time) the names I hear on the news are oh so familiar. That ol’ farmer near Huish Episcopi who used to sell good ol’ scrumpy cheap to we hard up sailors. The that other farmer who drove his battered pick up fast past the sailor on point at the gate to throw battered Sea Vixen fuel bay panels (sizeable bits of structure which had come adrift in flight – metal fatigue) onto the Quaterdeck with the shout of ‘Nigh on hit me cows’. Shore stations, aka Stone Class Frigates, also had quarterdecks, special tidily laid out areas in front of main admin’ with the ensign mast, polished cannons and black painted balls behind white picket fence and chain.

Sad to see that. As a child I enjoyed many a holiday there and at nearby Owlish Warren when building sand castles competed with logging the locomotives pulling the trains along the sea wall. I was lucky enough to spot the last of the GWR Star Class, forerunner of the later Castle Class some of which are still in steam, in traffic there in the mid 1950s.

This was the only rail link into Cornwall, thanks to cuts by another Tory administration which savaged the rail network, the then Minister for Transport had a decided conflict of interest by being into road haulage at the time.

Somerset is one of the UKs prime agricultural regions, having been based at a nearby air station (all weather fighter in my time) the names I hear on the news are oh so familiar. That ol’ farmer near Huish Episcopi who used to sell good ol’ scrumpy cheap to we hard up sailors. The that other farmer who drove his battered pick up fast past the sailor on point at the gate to throw battered Sea Vixen fuel bay panels (sizeable bits of structure which had come adrift in flight – metal fatigue) onto the Quaterdeck with the shout of ‘Nigh on hit me cows’. Shore stations, aka Stone Class Frigates, also had quarterdecks, special tidily laid out areas in front of main admin’ with the ensign mast, polished cannons and black painted balls behind white picket fence and chain.

The next huge system, little over 940 hPa is now attacking the stricken areas in Britain and Eire. The sea, having done with the defenses in places, will start eating homes by tomorrow morning local time.

The jet stream pattern is not remarkable. Its persistence for almost four months now is unique.
The monotony of this winter in Holland is unique, with 90% of winds between SSE and SSW (record was 79%).
The lack of frost is unique.

#88, Katrina, so what? Earns us gold. They’ve Dutch contractors and advisors there, of course. Sandy, same story. Go, Koch, hurl one of those on a US city every year, so we can pension at age 48 here. Et cetera, et cetera.

“I realize MSL has been rising, in fact it’s been rising for 20,000 years, and it will continue to rise IF OHC continues…how it follows the long term trend is a question mark.”

If sea level has been rising for so many years, how come the fish tanks near Rome that were built by the Romans are still at sea level? Why aren’t they under the metres of water they would be if MSL had been rising throughout the last 2000 years.

Here’s a nice video. No papers to read, but a simple clear presentation. You should like it because Jerry Mitrovica gives a nice thank you to denialists for raising questions that led to interesting research results. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhdY-ZezK7w

“If sea level has been rising for so many years, how come the fish tanks near Rome that were built by the Romans are still at sea level? Why aren’t they under the metres of water they would be if MSL had been rising throughout the last 2000 years.”

Because your Harvard Professor is choosing his time frame:

“Recent studies of Roman wells in Caesarea and of Roman piscinae in Italy indicate that sea level stayed fairly constant from a few hundred years AD to a few hundred years ago.”

“Based on geological data, global average sea level may have risen at an average rate of about 0.5 mm/yr over the last 6,000 years and at an average rate of 0.1–0.2 mm/yr over the last 3,000 years.”

“Since the Last Glacial Maximum about 20,000 years ago, sea level has risen by more than 120 m (averaging 6 mm/yr) as a result of melting of major ice sheets”

And thanks adelady, for raising questions that lead to interesting research results…